Indeed, FDR’s successor said one of the things he looked forward to upon leaving the White House was going back to being just plain ol’ “Mr. Truman.”
As mentioned, this has nothing to do with Head of State. That’s a semi-formal position many governments have which specifies a nominal leader, who is not neccessarily imbued with any actual power. Some Heads of State do have limiting powers o’er the government in some areas.
The U.S. President is a bit different, in that he’s Head of State, and Chief Executive, but not really Head of Government (unlike a Prime Minister, who is probably Chief Executive and certainly Head of Government, but not usually Head of State).
Sorry for taking so long to get back.
God Save the Queen/Hail to the Chief.
Both referring to HoS.
We don’t say God save Gordon Brown (the bastard)
There’s nothing in the french constitution that states that the president symbolizes or embodies anything. There’s no mention of a “head of state”, either. And I’m sure it’s the same in many constitutionnal documents in many countries around the world.
Still, I’ve no doubt the french president is a head of state. And no doubt that the American president is a head of state too.
A country has an executive even if the word “executive” isn’t written anywhere in its constitution. It has a head of state even if the word “head of state” isn’t written anywhere. I’m not sure why some people have a problem with that.
Well…some questions that might help for people having doubts about the USA having a “head of state” :
- Can you find a shorter version of the following sentence : “The kings, presidents, great-dukes, chairmen of the provisionnal governments, supreme leaders, emirs, emperors, co-princes and captain-regents signed the treaty at 2 pm today”?
- Can you remind me of the constitutionnal duties of the “first lady”, and explain to me why, in a country like yours, there is such a thing? Surely, no american woman can be placed above any other, you don’t have an aristocracy or anything, do you? How can you have a ** first ** lady?
3)Let’s assume that coming from a country that has such an archaic official, a head of state comes to the White House during an official visit. A bunch of American people are welcoming him : do you expect him to shake the hand of someone picked at random, or do you expect him to first shake the hand of a particular person? Which one and why?
That’s quite a dodge. You’re the one who raised the notion that if the Constitution don’t say it, it ain’t so.
How about the Marine Corps band. For, and only for, the US head of state, it plays exactly four Ruffles and Flourishes and one Hail to the Chief. Not remarkably, every time it has played those sequences, they have been for US presidents. It will play them again shortly after noon on January 20th, the moment Obama has finished taking his oath of office.
But you can also check out official US government websites:
The President of the United States of America is the head of state of the United States.
The President must be able to conduct business as Head of State, Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief at all times from any location.
http://www.disa.mil/whca/
The executive branch is in charge of executing Federal laws and is led by the head of state, President George W. Bush (since January 20, 2001). The president is both the head of state and the head of government.
http://nationalatlas.gov/government.html
The White House is, after all, the President’s private home. It is also the only private residence of a head of state that is open to the public, free of charge.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/glimpse/top.html
In addition, you can search government archives (or Google for that matter) for the phrase “head of state gifts”, whereupon you will find lists of duly registered gifts exchanged between American and foreign heads of state, most now archived at presidential libraries and national museums. It is possible that the whole world has been duped for more than two centuries while you alone hold the sacred knowledge, but it isn’t likely.
Here’s what’s likely. You will begin parsing this post for response before having even read it. You will ignore or dismiss the links and reasoning provided before having even considered them. You will dig in your heels to defend an assertion that flies in the face of world-wide historical protocol. I know this because I’ve seen it time and again on this board. In nearly ten years, seldom can I recall a person actually changing his mind due to the facts and reason presented to him, and acknowledging that his own argument is wrong.
My argument is that the custom itself is in error, contrary to the constitution, and violative of democratic principles. More examples of the custom merely constitute examples of repetition of the error.
I’m a bit dismayed that you’ve decided to get personal with this. I’m more than a little surprised at the level of venom here, particularly since your very user name is an example of the same kind of proposition.
Oh, and an analogy intended to point out a structural fallacy in an argument is not a dodge.
Contrary to the Constitution? That’s worse yet. If the Constitution said, “There shall be no head of state”, then it would be contrary to the Constitution. But as it stands, there is nothing to contradict.
That the US Constitution does not use the words ‘head of state’ proves absolutely nothing. No one called anyone that before the nineteenth century.
Exactly. The Constitution was deliberately left vague so that we could sort of grow into the thing. It wasn’t meant to be stone tablets of imparted wisdom, never changing or growing. It was meant to be a living document that would grow as the country grew.
And the President as defined by the Constitution was one of those really vague and nebulous things. We have solidified what exactly a President IS in the course of 2+ centuries as a nation. And one of the things a President has become in the course of that 2+ centuries is the ‘Head of State’ as the role is commonly accepted. The Presidents powers have also expanded in other ways not foreseen by the FF or in the Constitution.
C’est la vie. Personally I see this as a feature, not a flaw.
-XT
Wait… electing a congressman to represent a district is okay, electing a senator or governor to represent a state is okay, but electing a president to represent the country is a slap in the face to the Framers of the Constitution?
Say what?
If one avoids going overboard with the reasoning, one could construct a reasonable argument that the Framers saw Congress as being taking the lead on dealing with issues facing the nation, and intended the President to be more of a magistrate and, for lack of a better term, figurehead, as compared to the immense power that he now exercises. And yet, figurehead and chief of state are terms that are nearly interchangable in practical use. I fail to see what the anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional angle is.
A State’s chief representative is its head of state: International Law Reports - Google Books
The President is the principal representative of the United States. http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag32_user.html#art2_hd133
Therefore, the President is the head of state, at least according to the current understanding of that term in international law. Why would it need to be in the Constitution? What benefit could that possibly create. The Constitution spells out the President’s role functionally. International law determines the effect of those functions.
Let me point out the chain of argument here.
-
Essential definition: Head of State = individual who personifies and embodies a nation and its people
-
Peripheral definition: In most states, the Head of State is assigned certain functions, including, usually, representing the government in international fora
-
Proven: The president of the United States is the principal representative of the United States in international fora
-
Therefore, the president of the United States is the individual who personifies and embodies the nation and its people
In my view, you can’t prove 4 (the essential definition) by proving 3 (the peripheral definition). Proof that the president is assigned governmental duties and tasks that a head of state is usually assigned, but could be assigned to another government official, is not proof that the president is the individual who personifies and embodies the nation and its people.
Just to clarify –
The argument here is not about whether the governmental structure of the United States has a representative who performs certain governmental functions, because clearly it does. The argument is about whether the United States subscribes to the idea that its conceptual nationhood is embodied in an individual who is due special deference by “ordinary” citizens because of his or her status.
It’s not about whether the president is the guy appointed to shake hands with queens and presidents from around the world but whether the president carries with him or her an aura of “nationhood” and any failure to offer due deference to that individual is rightfully perceived as a failure to show respect for the nation and its people as a whole.
In my mind the very idea of an individual who is due special deference on account of his or her being considered the human avatar of the United States is offensive to the principles of democracy.
Look at the recent show throwing incident. To me, it was an instance of an individual showing disrespect for an individual, who very well might have deserved it. It was not an instance of an individual showing disrespect for the conceptual nationhood of the United States.
Not to play the definition game with you but where are you getting this from? The definition I’m looking at here says “the chief public representative of a country who may also be the head of government” which is a pretty good definition of what the president is and how they are thought of both here in the US and abroad.
-XT
I was going to ask the same question. It seems we’re playing the Humpty Dumpty game here. http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm If you mean something new by the term, wouldn’t it be better to pick a term that doesn’t have an established meaning instead of redefining as we go along?
The definition I’m working with is the one given by another poster in the Obama thread. I chose it as the “essential” one because any definition having to do with exercising particular governmental functions, including “chief representative of the government” can conceivably be done by someone who isn’t the head of state. In other words, they’re inessential definitions.
I don’t see how describing a president as “Head of State” does this. It’s not like he can casually start beheading people or declare his birthday a national holiday. What “special deference” are you assuming comes with the HoS title?
While the definition they used wasn’t wrong, because a head of state CAN embody the spirit of an entire country, but it is not NECESSARY that they do so. All they need to do is be the person uniquely charged with representing the country (and, in some cases, the government as well, in which case they’d also be chief of government). On edit: in a few cases, a head of state may have status in society that renders them immune to criticism – like the King of Thailand is a revered figure who is above all politics, to cite one contemporary example – but that is NOT the sine qua non of a head of state.
The chief of state may also be the chief of government (eg, POTUS) or may not be (eg, ERII). The logic you’re using to determine an inessential definition is based on a faulty premise.
This particular line of argument began with the “Barack the Magic Negro” thread and the linking of Peter Yarrow’s response. I said:
Obama was a citizen, then a state officeholder, then a U.S. senator, then a candidate for president, and now is president-elect, and soon will be president. None of those acquisitions of office constituted a change in “status” such that an insult to Obama alone as an individual or to the “presidency” as a public office constitutes an insult to those who voted for him and those who did not. No political office in the United States confers on an individual such a status.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Perhaps you could expand.
My logic is that any function or duty or power that might be used to define “head of state” is inessential to the definition of head of state because such functions or duties may be given to someone who is not head of state. The sole factor (that I have teased) that makes a “head of state” different from any other office is the part I label as “essential.”